11 ms·

I'm vaccinated and I personally don't care if others choose not to do it.

orhmeh09 5y ago
Why? Aren’t you worried that a patchily vaccinated population still provides a good (possibly even better) breeding ground for new variants?
- native_samples 5y ago
  I'm not. This argument is not reasonable and looks suspiciously like working backwards from a desired outcome to something that sounds like a scientific justification. Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms. Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. That's not the definition of what vaccines do. Vaccines give individual protection. If these vaccines had been advertised as requiring that, would they have been approved? It is hard to see how because believing this raises fundamental questions, questions like: given that people cannot all be vaccinated simultaneously, how quickly is it required to get to 100% vaccination before the vaccine becomes useless? This variable would seem to be critical for any such "vaccine" yet no such time dimension is available, probably because no study would have ever been created to try and discover that - because there's no scientific basis for determining it. Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? On what basis? And if it was wrong, why should anyone believe any claims about vaccines at all?
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    > Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms. Effectiveness against current variants doesn't guarantee effectiveness against future variants. "Just" reducing symptoms keeps people out of hospitals and graves. > Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. Straw man. > Vaccines give individual protection. And herd immunity when enough people get them. > Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? I very clearly heard up to 90% of the population. And we wouldn't know until people got vaccinated. Governments then set lower targets like 70% of adults. Probably they decided they couldn't persuade 90% of the population. Those weren't herd immunity estimates though. Some estimates have gone up because the delta variant is more transmissible. Moreover most countries are under 60% vaccinated.
    - 55555 5y ago
      https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 Every link I see on page 1 of results quotes 60-70% as the original herd immunity figure, which is what I recall hearing consistently back before the facts got upgraded.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      > Straw man. How is it a straw man? Are you sure you know what this term means? We're discussing a policy in which all Google employees who come into the office are being forced to vaccinate on the grounds that if any do not, it might be dangerous. That's exactly what we're discussing. Your herd immunity numbers are just made up. I saw many estimates last year and none were even close to 90%.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        > We're discussing a policy in which all Google employees who come into the office are being forced to vaccinate on the grounds that if any do not, it might be dangerous. No one made that argument. Even implicitly. Google wouldn't have an exception process if they thought even 1 person unvaccinated is dangerous. And basically it's the same policy many schools have for other vaccinations. > Your herd immunity numbers are just made up. I saw many estimates last year and none were even close to 90%. Last July the US GAO said 70 to 90% for most viruses. Their chart implied up to about 86% for COVID-19.[1] Fauci in December: "We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent."[2] WHO in December: "The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known." But about 95% and 80% for 2 other viruses.[3] [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-646sp https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-646sp [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... [3] https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19 https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockd...
        native_samples 5y ago
incanus77 5y ago
You must not have, know, or care about any kids.
- h_anna_h 5y ago
  Why are people so obsessed with kids? Afaik, covid is generally much softer on them, older people tend to be in higher danger.
  - TheHypnotist 5y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the kids. Why chance it? https://www.houstonpress.com/news/at-texas-childrens-some-kids-with-covid-need-ventilators-11610665 https://www.houstonpress.com/news/at-texas-childrens-some-ki...
  - incanus77 5y ago
    I'm not (don't have any, don't plan on any) but as it turns out, we haven't figured out another way to replicate ourselves yet. Also, they are generally innocent and, IMHO, worthy of life.
- lamp987 5y ago
  "think about the children!"
BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
I do, because I'm not the only person I care about.
pb7 5y ago
I care because despite being vaccinated and having had restrictions lifted, I am once again affected by them because of people that refuse to get vaccinated. If the consequences were siloed to unvaccinated people, I wouldn't care as that's their choice.
- benmw333 5y ago
  Those who chose not to get vaccinated are doing nothing to you.
  - pb7 5y ago
    They are if you consider second order effects.
    - benmw333 5y ago
      Well now you're just living the quantum life, brah.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    This is the kind of thinking that resulted in measles starting to have outbreaks again.
- TKWasRight 5y ago
  You know vaccinated people still transmit right?
boilerupnc 5y ago
Other good reasons aside, I care because it can also affect how my work and risks become altered. I have friends in healthcare who live in divided teams - ones vaxxed and others not. The ones who are not - openly avoid and channel all Covid positive patients to the ones who are - under the pretense that they have better protection. That's unfair. Those who chose to vaxx didn't also sign up to carry increased exposure frequency and risk as a side-effect. This ominous behavior easily translates to other scenarios outside of healthcare. Retail workers who are vaxxed are steered exclusively to people facing roles because those are riskier. Travel necessary, let those who got vaxxed take those trips. Whether we like it or not, individual vaxx status affects us all since it influences behavior and decisions because of its effect on risk determination at the individual and collective level.
dariosalvi78 5y ago
I do care because if enough people refuse to vaccinate we won't get rid of this pandemic, with all it consequences, and we make it easier for variants to develop, which could be even resistant to vaccines.
roberttod 5y ago
We're about to go through another spike in cases in the US because of the Delta variant spreading through the unvaxed population. This has implications for vaccinated people. We may need to reintroduce some lockdown rules and the Delta variant is still going to kill some vaccinated people (in much lower numbers, but unnecessary).
- native_samples 5y ago
  Vaccinated people catch and spread COVID just like the unvaccinated. The vaccines don't seem to affect transmission at all. Consider Iceland. It has a highly vaccinated population (>70%, supposedly the herd immunity threshold), yet is now seeing a third wave of the same magnitude as prior waves anyway. It seems the cause may be that the vaccines don't create mucosal immunity like natural infection would. The vaccines are now posited to be beneficial because they reduce symptoms, but not because they reduce spread. Note: this makes vaccine passports useless. It also means that unvaccinated people cannot be blamed for anything except, perhaps, hospital load, because even if you hypothesise some sort of 'second order effects', vaccinated people contribute to the evolution of new variants to the same extent. "We may need to reintroduce some lockdown rules" Why? Lockdowns have no effect on anything, it is proven beyond doubt these days. Plenty of studies show that now.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ubercow13 5y ago
    >Why? Lockdowns have no effect on anything, it is proven beyond doubt these days. Plenty of studies show that now. What? https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00316-9/fulltext https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)003... >Twenty-seven studies analysed the relation between lockdown and the reproduction number, case growth rates and cases, and 18 out them (67%) found an association with their reduction. Five studies found lockdowns to be the most effective control measure found it to be the only measure reducing the reproduction number below one. In contrast, five studies found it to be the least effective measure studied Right, really sounds like it's proven beyond doubt
TulliusCicero 5y ago
So you don't care about the immunocompromised people who might get sick or die? Or the subpopulation of vaccinated people for whom the vaccine just didn't take well?
bshoemaker 5y ago
That's nice. I have a baby. I don't want to be exposed to unvaxxed people at the office and risk bringing that home to my baby.
- TKWasRight 5y ago
  You know the vaccine doesn't do anything to stop transmission right? So you can be in a room full of vaccinated people and still be just as likely to get it...

Why? Aren’t you worried that a patchily vaccinated population still provides a good (possibly even better) breeding ground for new variants?

native_samples 5y ago
I'm not. This argument is not reasonable and looks suspiciously like working backwards from a desired outcome to something that sounds like a scientific justification. Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms. Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. That's not the definition of what vaccines do. Vaccines give individual protection. If these vaccines had been advertised as requiring that, would they have been approved? It is hard to see how because believing this raises fundamental questions, questions like: given that people cannot all be vaccinated simultaneously, how quickly is it required to get to 100% vaccination before the vaccine becomes useless? This variable would seem to be critical for any such "vaccine" yet no such time dimension is available, probably because no study would have ever been created to try and discover that - because there's no scientific basis for determining it. Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? On what basis? And if it was wrong, why should anyone believe any claims about vaccines at all?
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  > Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms. Effectiveness against current variants doesn't guarantee effectiveness against future variants. "Just" reducing symptoms keeps people out of hospitals and graves. > Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. Straw man. > Vaccines give individual protection. And herd immunity when enough people get them. > Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? I very clearly heard up to 90% of the population. And we wouldn't know until people got vaccinated. Governments then set lower targets like 70% of adults. Probably they decided they couldn't persuade 90% of the population. Those weren't herd immunity estimates though. Some estimates have gone up because the delta variant is more transmissible. Moreover most countries are under 60% vaccinated.
  - 55555 5y ago
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 Every link I see on page 1 of results quotes 60-70% as the original herd immunity figure, which is what I recall hearing consistently back before the facts got upgraded.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    > Straw man. How is it a straw man? Are you sure you know what this term means? We're discussing a policy in which all Google employees who come into the office are being forced to vaccinate on the grounds that if any do not, it might be dangerous. That's exactly what we're discussing. Your herd immunity numbers are just made up. I saw many estimates last year and none were even close to 90%.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      > We're discussing a policy in which all Google employees who come into the office are being forced to vaccinate on the grounds that if any do not, it might be dangerous. No one made that argument. Even implicitly. Google wouldn't have an exception process if they thought even 1 person unvaccinated is dangerous. And basically it's the same policy many schools have for other vaccinations. > Your herd immunity numbers are just made up. I saw many estimates last year and none were even close to 90%. Last July the US GAO said 70 to 90% for most viruses. Their chart implied up to about 86% for COVID-19.[1] Fauci in December: "We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent."[2] WHO in December: "The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known." But about 95% and 80% for 2 other viruses.[3] [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-646sp https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-646sp [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... [3] https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19 https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockd...
      - native_samples 5y ago

incanus77 5y ago

You must not have, know, or care about any kids.

h_anna_h 5y ago
Why are people so obsessed with kids? Afaik, covid is generally much softer on them, older people tend to be in higher danger.
- TheHypnotist 5y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the kids. Why chance it? https://www.houstonpress.com/news/at-texas-childrens-some-kids-with-covid-need-ventilators-11610665 https://www.houstonpress.com/news/at-texas-childrens-some-ki...
- incanus77 5y ago
  I'm not (don't have any, don't plan on any) but as it turns out, we haven't figured out another way to replicate ourselves yet. Also, they are generally innocent and, IMHO, worthy of life.
lamp987 5y ago
"think about the children!"

BHSPitMonkey 5y ago

I do, because I'm not the only person I care about.

pb7 5y ago

I care because despite being vaccinated and having had restrictions lifted, I am once again affected by them because of people that refuse to get vaccinated. If the consequences were siloed to unvaccinated people, I wouldn't care as that's their choice.

benmw333 5y ago
Those who chose not to get vaccinated are doing nothing to you.
- pb7 5y ago
  They are if you consider second order effects.
  - benmw333 5y ago
    Well now you're just living the quantum life, brah.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  This is the kind of thinking that resulted in measles starting to have outbreaks again.
TKWasRight 5y ago
You know vaccinated people still transmit right?

boilerupnc 5y ago

Other good reasons aside, I care because it can also affect how my work and risks become altered. I have friends in healthcare who live in divided teams - ones vaxxed and others not. The ones who are not - openly avoid and channel all Covid positive patients to the ones who are - under the pretense that they have better protection. That's unfair. Those who chose to vaxx didn't also sign up to carry increased exposure frequency and risk as a side-effect. This ominous behavior easily translates to other scenarios outside of healthcare. Retail workers who are vaxxed are steered exclusively to people facing roles because those are riskier. Travel necessary, let those who got vaxxed take those trips. Whether we like it or not, individual vaxx status affects us all since it influences behavior and decisions because of its effect on risk determination at the individual and collective level.

dariosalvi78 5y ago

I do care because if enough people refuse to vaccinate we won't get rid of this pandemic, with all it consequences, and we make it easier for variants to develop, which could be even resistant to vaccines.

roberttod 5y ago

We're about to go through another spike in cases in the US because of the Delta variant spreading through the unvaxed population. This has implications for vaccinated people. We may need to reintroduce some lockdown rules and the Delta variant is still going to kill some vaccinated people (in much lower numbers, but unnecessary).

native_samples 5y ago
Vaccinated people catch and spread COVID just like the unvaccinated. The vaccines don't seem to affect transmission at all. Consider Iceland. It has a highly vaccinated population (>70%, supposedly the herd immunity threshold), yet is now seeing a third wave of the same magnitude as prior waves anyway. It seems the cause may be that the vaccines don't create mucosal immunity like natural infection would. The vaccines are now posited to be beneficial because they reduce symptoms, but not because they reduce spread. Note: this makes vaccine passports useless. It also means that unvaccinated people cannot be blamed for anything except, perhaps, hospital load, because even if you hypothesise some sort of 'second order effects', vaccinated people contribute to the evolution of new variants to the same extent. "We may need to reintroduce some lockdown rules" Why? Lockdowns have no effect on anything, it is proven beyond doubt these days. Plenty of studies show that now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ubercow13 5y ago
  >Why? Lockdowns have no effect on anything, it is proven beyond doubt these days. Plenty of studies show that now. What? https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00316-9/fulltext https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)003... >Twenty-seven studies analysed the relation between lockdown and the reproduction number, case growth rates and cases, and 18 out them (67%) found an association with their reduction. Five studies found lockdowns to be the most effective control measure found it to be the only measure reducing the reproduction number below one. In contrast, five studies found it to be the least effective measure studied Right, really sounds like it's proven beyond doubt

TulliusCicero 5y ago

So you don't care about the immunocompromised people who might get sick or die? Or the subpopulation of vaccinated people for whom the vaccine just didn't take well?

bshoemaker 5y ago

That's nice. I have a baby. I don't want to be exposed to unvaxxed people at the office and risk bringing that home to my baby.

TKWasRight 5y ago
You know the vaccine doesn't do anything to stop transmission right? So you can be in a room full of vaccinated people and still be just as likely to get it...